No AFL team for Tasmania, league boss Gillon McLachlan announces

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I wasn't, I was including all federal money going to the state.

Missed that, but it doesn't actually alter my point. In my example the federal govt cant stop the states levying taxes on mining, so it simply deducts the amount raised from the amount distributed through the GST to get the same effect.

The GST originally was designed as a simple all encompassing tax to replace a myriad of state and federal sales taxes.

I'm pretty sure from memory the same thing happened. Recalcitrance from the states was met by an offset to the GST distribution.

 

[telsor]

Yes & being an older population its mainly going in health care costs.

Yes, you are.....Now, to celebrate you actually recognising that (you always dismiss it when I bring it up) lets see if you can extrapolate that into other areas...Like long term support for a Tas team/population, or the decline in players in Tas.

You can do it if you try.

The State domestic economy was some $31billion at last count. An AFL club is peanuts compared to that.

Wasn't referring to an AFL club, but if supporting an AFL club out of a $33B economy is 'peanuts', how many clubs would a $424B economy be able to support?

Figure I used was $33B (I was being generous and used state final demand, which is $33003 for the year to jun-2018, rather than production which is $30266), but ether way, getting over a billion in extra funds from the feds is a major factor in your economy.

 

[telsor]

Our Federation was built on the principle that Joe and Mary can get the same level of social services in NSW than Tas. That is not going to change for the same reason the AFL gives out more money to the small clubs. So, this talk on GST distributions is a moot point regardless.

Last time I checked, the AFL wasn't a business. If it was solely on a profit-shareholder platform, then there wouldn't be 10 teams in Vic. It is the governing body of the sport.

No place should get a team solely because they "deserve" it, but it should be a factor if they can improve to the comp. The 500K Tasmanians are as much of a shareholder in Aussie Rules than the rest of AR fans. Yet, unlike the others, we "aren't good enough", despite having 8 GAMES PLAYED DOWN HERE NEXT YEAR. Yeah, talk one way, do another.

8 games, costing what? $6or7Million?
11 games would cost you ~$45Million. (to go by Gil's comment about a year back)

You've got a good deal currently.


Oh, and if you look at the population of the football states, and divide by teams, Tas population rates about 2/3 of a team...or a bit less than you get now.

 

[telsor]

Missed that, but it doesn't actually alter my point. In my example the federal govt cant stop the states levying taxes on mining, so it simply deducts the amount raised from the amount distributed through the GST to get the same effect.

The GST originally was designed as a simple all encompassing tax to replace a myriad of state and federal sales taxes.

I'm pretty sure from memory the same thing happened. Recalcitrance from the states was met by an offset to the GST distribution.

Pretty much.

More broadly, my comment was a reply to the claim that Tas government spending was 'their money' and nobody else had any right to comment on how it was spent. (post 1018).

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Pretty much.

More broadly, my comment was a reply to the claim that Tas government spending was 'their money' and nobody else had any right to comment on how it was spent. (post 1018).

I dont think the argument goes anywhere. The Victorian Government funds the MCG. The other states have public subsidies to footy in one form or another. We get direct sponsorship money from the ACT government.

Woukd certainly make more sense for the Tasmanian Govt to fund a Tassie team rather than a Victorian visitor.

You could argue that it's Victorians selflessly providing a home for the national game.

 

[madmug]

I dont think the argument goes anywhere. The Victorian Government funds the MCG. The other states have public subsidies to footy in one form or another. We get direct sponsorship money from the ACT government.

Woukd certainly make more sense for the Tasmanian Govt to fund a Tassie team rather than a Victorian visitor.

You could argue that it's Victorians selflessly providing a home for the national game.

I think most of us know how much the AFL relies on Federal, State & local government funding to operate at the professional level & certainly below that in suburban & rural football. The AFL only own 1 ground in the whole country. If it wasn't for taxpayer largesse, the game wouldn't exist, anywhere.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I think most of us know how much the AFL relies on Federal, State & local government funding to operate at the professional level & certainly below that in suburban & rural football. The AFL only own 1 ground in the whole country. If it wasn't for taxpayer largesse, the game wouldn't exist, anywhere.

I was just pointing out that the Tassie Govt shouldn't contribute to a local team doesn't have legs

 

[madmug]

I was just pointing out that the Tassie Govt shouldn't contribute to a local team doesn't have legs

Yes & I was just adding the fact the AFL as a whole relies on Government largesse.

 

[The_Reaper]

State taxes in Tasmania have nothing to do with WA. They aren't your dollars.

GST you lot bludge absolutely has everything to do with WA

 

[madmug]

GST you lot bludge absolutely has everything to do with WA

Nothing to do with 'you' is what I said.

Anyway, If you dont like it, leave.

 

[Starburns_]

I dont think the argument goes anywhere. The Victorian Government funds the MCG. The other states have public subsidies to footy in one form or another. We get direct sponsorship money from the ACT government.

It astonishes me that people still actually believe this.

Still, funding of a long-term infrastructure project is not the same as a yearly handout to an unprofitable organisation.

None of the current 18 clubs receive any annual government funding from their home market simply for existing. It's not a sustainable or healthy model.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

It astonishes me that people still actually believe this.

Still, funding of a long-term infrastructure project is not the same as a yearly handout to an unprofitable organisation.

None of the current 18 clubs receive any annual government funding from their home market simply for existing. It's not a sustainable or healthy model.

Actually I'd argue we do. Canberra is a part of our home market, and has been since inception. Our Chairman and CEO have both said we will take finals there.

The club is as invested in developing the game there as it is in Western Sydney. The challenge is different as there's stronger AFL support.

 

[Ando727]

GST you lot bludge absolutely has everything to do with WA

Your state exists on the value of the rocks you dig out often ground. Just wait for a downturn in resources and your state becomes one with it's hand in the jar - in a big way. And if you think that's never going to happen you need to read up on the economy a bit more. In the end, who cares? It's a country not independent states. We shouldn't be pointing fingers at each other and labelling each others as good or bad. Each state has unique characteristics but we all ultimately add up to a nation.

 

[Starburns_]

Actually I'd argue we do. Canberra is a part of our home market, and has been since inception. Our Chairman and CEO have both said we will take finals there.

It's not. The simple fact is if they weren't paying you (and you drew 25k to Spotless every week) then you'd never play a H&A game there. You're basically Hawthorn in Tassie except your visits make geographical sense.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

It's not. The simple fact is if they weren't paying you (and you drew 25k to Spotless every week) then you'd never play a H&A game there. You're basically Hawthorn in Tassie except your visits make geographical sense.

That's not right. Neither the Hawks nor North see Tassie as a permanent home, as we do Canberra.

There's a proposal for a new stadium there, which is needed and would cement the future for AFL there. As I understand the ACT Govt is supportive but Nimbys are the issue and it's bogged down for now.

One day we'll achieve 50k members and Spotless will be upgraded, but I'm pretty sure we'll still be in Canberra.

 

[telsor]

I dont think the argument goes anywhere. The Victorian Government funds the MCG. The other states have public subsidies to footy in one form or another. We get direct sponsorship money from the ACT government.

Woukd certainly make more sense for the Tasmanian Govt to fund a Tassie team rather than a Victorian visitor.

You could argue that it's Victorians selflessly providing a home for the national game.

Agreed, but when the Vic govenment spends on such stuff (and relatively speaking, they spend far less than most), it's Vic money. As I've shown, when Tas spends, a large chunk of it originates from outside Vic.

 

[telsor]

That's not right. Neither the Hawks nor North see Tassie as a permanent home, as we do Canberra.

There's a proposal for a new stadium there, which is needed and would cement the future for AFL there. As I understand the ACT Govt is supportive but Nimbys are the issue and it's bogged down for now.

One day we'll achieve 50k members and Spotless will be upgraded, but I'm pretty sure we'll still be in Canberra.

The Hawks have been pretty loyal and firm in their commentary about staying in Tas. At least as much as GWS in ACT.
That others want them out doesn't mean they don't see it as a 'permanent' home.

 

[madmug]

The Hawks have been pretty loyal and firm in their commentary about staying in Tas. At least as much as GWS in ACT.
That others want them out doesn't mean they don't see it as a 'permanent' home.

You have a strange idea of a 'home'. Its hardly a 'home' when they FIFO & have no control on the fixture.

Its only about the money. Making it while they can.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

The Hawks have been pretty loyal and firm in their commentary about staying in Tas. At least as much as GWS in ACT.
That others want them out doesn't mean they don't see it as a 'permanent' home.

I've already addressed that. It's just denial now.

We will play finals at Manuka.

We are invested in developing the Gane in Canberra.

 

[The_Reaper]

Your state exists on the value of the rocks you dig out often ground. Just wait for a downturn in resources and your state becomes one with it's hand in the jar - in a big way. And if you think that's never going to happen you need to read up on the economy a bit more. In the end, who cares? It's a country not independent states. We shouldn't be pointing fingers at each other and labelling each others as good or bad. Each state has unique characteristics but we all ultimately add up to a nation.

Very easy to argue this when the entitled Tasmania pov is always "we deserve this and the mainland can pay for it".

 

[madmug]

Very easy to argue this when the entitled Tasmania pov is always "we deserve this and the mainland can pay for it".

It was easy for WA to except the very Federal concept of Horizontal Fiscal equalisation when they needed it. But if you like we'll go back to individual colonies, until you need it again.

Maybe even redraw our state borders so NT can have more resources. They are near bankrupt so need a lot of help.

Anyway, back to the footy.

 

[Ando727]

Very easy to argue this when the entitled Tasmania pov is always "we deserve this and the mainland can pay for it".

You're missing the point of what a nation is. But why stop where you do? Why not break down regional areas or even suburbs into those who are paying their way and those who aren't? By your logic, they shouldn't get their share from the state's coffers because they don't deserve it. What are states and nations for if not to equalise wealth and opportunity?

 

[madmug]

It astonishes me that people still actually believe this.

Still, funding of a long-term infrastructure project is not the same as a yearly handout to an unprofitable organisation.

None of the current 18 clubs receive any annual government funding from their home market simply for existing. It's not a sustainable or healthy model.

Funding long-term infrastructure isn't much good if it doesn't give a return to the community in some way. Surely no different to supporting an unprofitable business is it?

Richmond were happy to get Government money for sponsorship. It was great until they 'pissed' the first one via TAC, up against the wall. Now they've got some ADF sponsorship.

Hawthorn have had some 18 years of Tasmanian State Government sponsorship.

Are they unhealthy models?

Relying on gambling money like Luxabet, or pokies to balance the footy budget?

How 'Healthy', is that? Does it matter?

I could say that Government sponsorship for tourism is 'healthier' than accepting gambling profit money.

 

[Starburns_]

Funding long-term infrastructure isn't much good if it doesn't give a return to the community in some way. Surely no different to supporting an unprofitable business is it?

Of course it isn't much good if it's not used, but no one would fund a stadium without a team being locked in. Funding a stadium is a singular expense, it either happens or it doesn't, it's not an ongoing arrangement

Richmond were happy to get Government money for sponsorship. It was great until they 'pissed' the first one via TAC, up against the wall. Now they've got some ADF sponsorship.

That was part of a wider TAC ad campaign about road safety, they wanted it out there so they did a deal that was mutually beneficial (for a time). Much like...

Hawthorn have had some 18 years of Tasmanian State Government sponsorship.

And Hawthorn actually have to give something up for that sponsorship. Without the 4 games in Launceston, the deal is worthless to the Tasmanian government. What Tasmania pay for is the presence in the national competition (tourists) and the exposure that comes from that.

There are no benefits to the state government from sponsorsing a true Tasmanian team long-term, they gain nothing from it that isn't already gained by the existence of the team itself (it's as pointless as the City of Melbourne sponsoring the Demons). If there's no incentive for them to continue to subsidise the team, they're eventually going to stop.

Relying on gambling money like Luxabet, or pokies to balance the footy budget?

How 'Healthy', is that? Does it matter?

I could say that Government sponsorship for tourism is 'healthier' than accepting gambling profit money.

Then you'd be wrong. You're confusing health with ethics. There's no imminent legislation coming about gambling advertising that would kill these deals. A government sponsorship is subject to state budgets, cost-benefit anslysis, and political whims, a commercial one is not.

If a Tasmanian team cannot find a major sponsor that isn't the government when they begin, then WTF are they going to do when the government eventually pulls it's support?

Sponsorships aren't meant to last forever, a Tasmanian team needs to show that it's attractive enough commercially to survive without factoring in local government charity. It's not that difficult to see why entering into an arrangement with the government is a dangerous and unsustainable move.

 

[madmug]

Of course it isn't much good if it's not used, but no one would fund a stadium without a team being locked in. Funding a stadium is a singular expense, it either happens or it doesn't, it's not an ongoing arrangement



That was part of a wider TAC ad campaign about road safety, they wanted it out there so they did a deal that was mutually beneficial (for a time). Much like...



And Hawthorn actually have to give something up for that sponsorship. Without the 4 games in Launceston, the deal is worthless to the Tasmanian government. What Tasmania pay for is the presence in the national competition (tourists) and the exposure that comes from that.

There are no benefits to the state government from sponsorsing a true Tasmanian team long-term, they gain nothing from it that isn't already gained by the existence of the team itself (it's as pointless as the City of Melbourne sponsoring the Demons). If there's no incentive for them to continue to subsidise the team, they're eventually going to stop.



Then you'd be wrong. You're confusing health with ethics. There's no imminent legislation coming about gambling advertising that would kill these deals. A government sponsorship is subject to state budgets, cost-benefit anslysis, and political whims, a commercial one is not.

If a Tasmanian team cannot find a major sponsor that isn't the government when they begin, then WTF are they going to do when the government eventually pulls it's support?

Sponsorships aren't meant to last forever, a Tasmanian team needs to show that it's attractive enough commercially to survive without factoring in local government charity. It's not that difficult to see why entering into an arrangement with the government is a dangerous and unsustainable move.

Sponsorships ARE meant to last as long as possible. Look at Ford with Geelong. That started 1n 1925! & is one of the oldest sports sponsorships in the World. So Its cheaper to keep them, than change regularly.

Given the AFLs moral dilemma with gambling, I'd take Government support as an arm of its approach to Tourism any time. You say its unsustainable but offer no reason why it would. Just a negative opinion. (see Ford above!)

The Government would continue with such support as it sees both an economic benefit of the money staying in Tasmania & encouraging tourism, as well as the community benefit of having our own team based in the state.